IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was based on the amount determined in a previous case, and the appellant had the opportunity to raise objections, which were duly considered and rejected.

ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19th July 2019 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(C) No.7540 of 2017 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petition was filed challenging the order contained in Memo No.185 dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Certificate Case No.04/2016-17.

3. Mr. Prabhat Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned writ Court has failed to take into consideration that no opportunity was specifically granted to the appellant to file objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently, the final order passed by the Certificate Officer-cum-District Co-operative Officer, Pakur was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the instant case as an order under section 10 of the Act has been passed without hearing the writ petitioner/appellant and without considering the objections raised by him as provided under section 9 of the aforesaid Act. It is further submitted that the documents to show service of notice was not produced by the respondents before the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that the notice under section 7 of the Act was not served upon the appellant and the appellant came to know of certificate proceeding initiated against him for the first time when the matter was transferred to the District Co-Operative Officer for execution of certificate. If notice under section 7 was served upon the appellant, the respondents could have brought it on record in the writ petition but the respondents failed to do so.

4. It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid the order of the Certificate Officer impugned in the writ petition is fit to be set aside which has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge.

5. In support of the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions in “Md. Firoz Ansari & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2022 (1) JLJR 473 and “Kamal Kishore Prasad proprietor of M/s Swastic Motor Stores v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2023 AIR (Jhar) 36.

6. This Court finds that the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that against the order passed by the authority in the aforesaid surcharge case, no appeal was filed, meaning thereby, the liability which has been casted upon the writ petitioner in pursuance to the order passed in the Surcharge Case No.03 of 2014 has been accepted and the certificate proceeding was in consequence of the said order and nothing remained to be decided by the Certificate Officer.

7. It is not in dispute that the liability against the appellant was crystalized in Surcharge Case No.03 of 2014 for an amount of Rs.7,50,514.50 vide order dated 14th October 2015 as has been stated by the appellant in para 8 of the writ petition but the said order has not been annexed in the writ records.

8. It is further not in dispute that the said certificate case was instituted for recovery of the dues arising out of the aforesaid surcharge case. It is important to note that the appellant has himself annexed the notice issued under section 7 of the Act at Annexure-3 of the writ petition which is dated 29th April 2016 and, in response thereof, he filed an objection by way of a letter dated 11th February 2017 disputing his liability by stating that before fixing the liability upon him, proper enquiry was not done inspite of his repeated requests. The Certificate Officer treated the letter dated 11th February 2017 as objection and rejected the same by recording that the certificate case was instituted for recovery of the amount already determined in terms of order passed in the Surcharge Case No. 03 of 2014.

9. Accordingly